Key result
Automated office BP fails to match home or ambulatory monitoring by up to ~13 mmHg.
Why the study?
To assess whether automated office blood pressure measurement is superior to conventional office techniques and a viable alternative to out-of-office home or ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.
Is automated office blood pressure measurement comparable to conventional office BP, home self-measurement, or ambulatory BP monitoring?
Cross-Sectional (n=74)
Is automated office blood pressure measurement comparable to conventional office BP, home self-measurement, or ambulatory BP monitoring?
Automated office blood pressure measurement shows good agreement with conventional office measurement but cannot reliably estimate out-of-office blood pressure.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
AOBP should not substitute for out-of-office readings in hypertension assessment; leaves open its incremental value over conventional office BP.
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether automated office blood pressure (BP) (AOBP) measurement is a better method for measuring BP in the office than conventional techniques and an alternative to out-of-office BP measurements: home-self BP (HSBP) or ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 74 patients and compared AOBP with the conventional technique using a mercury sphygmomanometer and with both out-to-office BP measurements: HSBP of 7 days (three measurements in the morning, afternoon, and night) and daytime ABPM. In addition, we compared BP values obtained using HSBP and ABPM to determine their level of agreement. We used ANOVA to compare means, Bland-Altman, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for concordance. RESULTS: BP values obtained by the two office methods were similar: conventional 147.2/85.0 mmHg and AOBP 146.0/85.5 mmHg ( P > 0.05) with good agreement (ICC 0.85). The mean SBP differences between AOBP and HSBP ( P < 0.001) and between AOBP and ABPM ( P < 0.001) were 8.6/13.0 mmHg with limits of agreement of -21.2 to 38.5 and -18.4 to 44.3 mmHg, respectively. The average SBP values obtained by HSBP were 4.3 mmHg higher than those obtained by ABPM ( P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Our study showed good agreement and concordance between the two office methods as well between the two out-to-office methods, although there was a significant difference in the mean SBP between the HSBP and ABPM. Moreover, AOBP was not comparable to either HSBP or ABPM; therefore, the estimation of out-to-office BP using AOBP is not supported.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fonseca‐Reyes et al. (2022) conducted a cross-sectional in Blood pressure measurement (n=74). Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) vs. Conventional office BP, home self-measurement (HSBP), and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) was evaluated on Mean systolic blood pressure differences between AOBP and out-of-office BP measurements (HSBP and ABPM) (Mean difference 8.6/13.0 mmHg, p=< 0.001). Automated office blood pressure was not comparable to home self-measurement or ambulatory monitoring, despite agreeing with conventional office BP.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: